cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Fluff front-end software like CW misleading

Your FICO® Scores can impact your loan interest rates, terms, approvals and more.
Super Contributor

Fluff front-end software like CW misleading

I know there have been a good amount of threads on this, but I just saw another one on my Cap One Credit Wise summary... basically where fluff front-end CMS software paints an incorrect picture.  As the image displayed shows, CW states that it's "excellent" that I'm not using any of my available credit.  I have all $0 reported balances currently, so I'm of course taking a 15 point or so ding to my FICO scores.  CW gives the thumbs up for this, though and as you can see from their description they're actually 100% wrong.  It's a very minor thing here of course, but this is just another general shout out that CMS front-end software can be very misleading, especially for those that aren't die hards with this stuff like many on this forum are.

 

cap1.jpg

Message 1 of 9
8 REPLIES 8
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading

Well, two thoughts.

 

1) Vantage score does not penalize for no revolving activity.

 

2) Why do you care about being "Excellent" on self-admitted fluff CMS's? Smiley Happy

 




        
Message 2 of 9
Moderator

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading


@Revelate wrote:

Well, two thoughts.

 

1) Vantage score does not penalize for no revolving activity.

 

2) Why do you care about being "Excellent" on self-admitted fluff CMS's? Smiley Happy

 


I was thinking the same thing Smiley Very Happy

Message 3 of 9
Frequent Contributor

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading

It could be considered 'misleading' if you assume it's a Fico system. It's perfectly accurate for Vantage Score caluclations. Why would Vantage Score (available at Credit Karma, Cap1 Credit Wise, American Express now, etc) tell you what is ideal for Fico?

Message 4 of 9
Community Leader
Super Contributor

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading

BBS, I can only hope somebody loves me one day the way you love word "fluff".
EX 753 EQ 769 TU 755
Message 5 of 9
Super Contributor

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading


@Revelate wrote:

2) Why do you care about being "Excellent" on self-admitted fluff CMS's? Smiley Happy

 


I don't, but many do. 

Message 6 of 9
Super Contributor

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading


@Revelate wrote:

1) Vantage score does not penalize for no revolving activity.

 


But it doesn't reward for no revolving activity.  The text suggests the less you use, the greater your score... which is suggestive that no revolving credit use would increase your score.

Message 7 of 9
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading

If there is no penalty for 0 and a decreasing penalty for elements less than 100% that is perfectly accurate.

It’s really the same thing in FICO, less (but not zero) is better but paying from 62% to 54% or whatever (pick two aggregate or individual metrics that are between the same set of breakpoints) doesn’t necessarily result in a FICO increase.

We just do a better job of explaining that is all.



        
Message 8 of 9
Senior Contributor

Re: Fluff front-end software like CW misleading

To add some other observations:

1) The Fico metric associated with accounts with balances considers fewer is better all the way down to zero

2) It is a different attribute all together that penalizes for no revolving account activity - and this penalty can be realized with multiple accounts having balances.

3) As alluded to above, The Fico utilization metric looks at lower is neutral or better all the way down to 0%. Again, the penalty comes from an independent attribute.

 

While there is no VantageScore penalty for no revolving activity based on my experience and review of reason codes, their utilization metric has a local maximum score anomoly. I've experienced it a couple times in real life and by focused OFAT testing of the simulator. See below. I did some follow-up simulator testing a year later changing total CC balances to generate 0.1% UT increments in the 3.5% to 5.5% range. As I recall,  the local maximum plateaued in the 4.2% to 4.7%. The follow-up testing showed an 835 peak for my profile - perhaps a different # of cards with balances, a lower mortgage balance or aging made a trivial difference in peak potential.

 

Note: Number of accounts with a balance is constant in the below simulation as are all other factors except total CC balance.

 

VS3 graph.jpg

 

 

Fico 8: .......EQ 850 TU 850 EX 850
Fico 9: .......EQ 850 TU 850 EX 850
Fico 4 .....:. EQ 809 TU 823 EX 830 EX Fico 98: 842
VS 3.0:...... EQ 835 TU 835 EX 835
Fico 8 BC:. EQ 892 TU 900 EX 900
CBIS: ........EQ LN Auto 940 EQ LN Home 870 TU Auto 902 TU Home 950
Message 9 of 9